 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/15/2004 4:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was at WHC and heard Greg last message and I am still struggling with the whole sword and cross. Not that I disagree as much as what does that look like.
As a christian I do believe what Jesus says about 'loving your enemy' and 'turning your cheek' but when and what does that look like.
In the OT the Israelites most certainly did not always turn the other cheek, under Gods orders war against other nations.
And Jesus was harsh with the Pharisees and over turned tables in the temple...not exactly loving or cheek turning. So what is the deal.
These are half formed ideas...so hang with me as I try to flush out my thoughts;
If it is kingdom work, what would Jesus do... as we see in the bible he didn't always turn the other cheek.
With the Pharisees;
Jesus saw the Pharisees as 'blind guides' and 'guiding' many the wrong way, so Jesus for the good of the many used tough love on the Pharisees.
And the temple;
Same thing, Jesus over turned the tables and ran the peddlers out of the temple for the over all good.
Over and over in the OT God used Israel to take out 'peoples' and in my view it was for the greater good. You had evil nations that needed to be dealt with, Like a disease they needed to be 'cut out' before they affected the whole world and/or at least the Israelites.
What you guy think? help me work through this | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/16/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
My next wave of thoughts...
So as a nation or at least Christians should we fight against the label 'Christian nation' and pastors and leaders stop saying we are a Christian nation?
1st... We really can't be a 'Christian nation' with 'born again' Christians at what maybe 15% so the vast majority is not 'Christian'.
2nd... So when we do anything as a nation (good or bad) we run the risk of it being labeled 'done by Christians'. Which is fine for the good but, the bad it all the world seems to focus on.
Isn't best that our nation be a nation with Christians in it...?
Jesus said 'render to Caesar what is Caesar's' also 'obey your governing authorities'. And in each nation the governing authorities have different rules and laws and we should obey them just as long as they don't go against God's laws.
Well, in this country we our government is based on 'of the people, by the people and for the people'.
So what does that mean as a Christian American? When it come to things of our nation and not as much 'Kingdom work'...
-How much do we get involved?
-When do we turn the other cheek and when do we stand up for others and ourselves?
-Do we fight in wars?
-Do we stand up for the weak, the unborn? What does that look like?
-Do we call sin 'SIN'?
-Do we do what we can to stop gay marriage?
-Do we only vote for people who with vote closest to Christian ideals?
- Do we join a Christian Coalition?
Or
Do we separate ourselves from what is our 'nation' and what is our 'Kingdom'?
....because our Kingdom is NOT of this world
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/16/2004 5:23 AM (GMT -6) | | The problem stems from taking "turning the other cheek," and using it as a madate for every action a Christian takes. As Dallas Willard shows in his wonderful book The Divine Consprirary," Jesus used that as an example of how we should act, not as the choice we should make in every circumstance.
There are no "christian nations," so I do not see this as an issue. We should take up arms to fight, evil but I do not believe this is a simple issue with simple answers. Each war is another issue to decide. Each Christian must make up his own mind, but the church, is historically has never been pacicifist and has always believed in a just war. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Archibaldo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 9/16/2004 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | On the "turn the other cheek" issue, i have found some thoughts of Steve Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus to help me philosophically deal with this verse.
He talks of the first cheek hit being one typically described in that day as a backhanded slap. One like a master would give a slave, or a husband a wife, or a Roman a jew. His offer of then offer him the other cheek was not one about being okay with being hit, or rolling over. IT was actually active resistance in a non-violent manner. By turning their face to offer only the other cheek they could no longer be hit in this manner. Due to the age and location, the left hands were used for only "unclean" activities and thus could not be used to backhand. The situation leaves the attacker in the point, where they could continue to attack, but must do so by acknowledging that the victim is an equal, and cannot be backhanded in humiliating fashion.
He argues that Jesus was giving examples of non-violent RESISTANCE. Not a way to be nice, or to be humble, or even to "show love" but to resist in a way where violence was not the answer.
I liked the thoughts. I like that Jesus.
Archy
"anything less than passion is dog crap." -Paul Hurckman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Armchair Theologian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 9/16/2004 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Archibaldo
On the "turn the other cheek" issue, i have found some thoughts of Steve Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus to help me philosophically deal with this verse.
He talks of the first cheek hit being one typically described in that day as a backhanded slap. One like a master would give a slave, or a husband a wife, or a Roman a jew. His offer of then offer him the other cheek was not one about being okay with being hit, or rolling over. IT was actually active resistance in a non-violent manner. By turning their face to offer only the other cheek they could no longer be hit in this manner. Due to the age and location, the left hands were used for only "unclean" activities and thus could not be used to backhand. The situation leaves the attacker in the point, where they could continue to attack, but must do so by acknowledging that the victim is an equal, and cannot be backhanded in humiliating fashion.
He argues that Jesus was giving examples of non-violent RESISTANCE. Not a way to be nice, or to be humble, or even to "show love" but to resist in a way where violence was not the answer.
Interesting....
thanks!
"The LORD said to her,
'Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body'" | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/18/2004 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | | "when violence was not the answer..." true. But in this perfect world violence sometimes is the answer, just as it will be when Jesus comes back. As I said before, it was an example Jesus gave, not a mandate on how to act in each and every situation. God made humans that think for themselves, not robots. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Archibaldo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 9/19/2004 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Steven Chalke also dives into the messages that the cloak and tunic, as well as the extra mile would send. They also were forms of very passive resistance. When i get back to the office tomorrow where the book lies, i'll quote some more. Some of the understandings that i can immediately remember are that the soldiers were allowed to demand someone carry something a mile, but making them carry more than a mile would result in the soldier getting in a lot of trouble. Thus, instead of saying thank you, the soldier would spend the entire second mile trying to convince you that you should put the bag down, so he doesn't get in trouble.
Much like when Rosa Parks was asked to give her one bus seat, and in return, Many Africans gave ALL bus seats in the boycott. Very active resistance without violence. This is the extra mile, give me a seat, or give me all the seats.
Can't remember cloak and tunic now, it was a while ago when i read it.
Archy
"anything less than passion is dog crap." -Paul Hurckman | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/21/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | The other week in a sermon I raised the question of what it means for us to "love our enemies, bless those who persecute you, pray for those who abuse you." If Muslims attached us, as some are, would we simply do what normal Americans would do and pick up a sword and cut off their heads before they cut off ours? If so, how have we progressed at all from the Christianity of the crusade? There too Christians killed Muslims in the name of God and country. If this would be our response, in what sense do we "follow" Jesus' teaching? And if this would be our response, how is Chirstian "love" distinct from the world?
As I read Scripture, nothing but nothing BUT NOTHING is so important as kingdom people cultivating a distinctly, outrageous, form of love that doesn't make any sense to the world -- as crazy as omnipotent God being crucified on the tree. And this crazy insane love is what is to win the world.
Of course, if we're honest with ourselves, we can't do it. If Muslims attached, we at the very least would WANT to cut off their heads before they cut off ours. Because, if we are honest, we don't love our enemies. Hence, obeying these teachings seems burdensome rather than freeing.
BUT, if we cultivated in little ways on a moment by moment basis a mindset and lifestyle of love -- if we "imitated God" and "lived in love as Christ loved us and gave his life for us" (Eph 5:1-2) -- I bet we'd cultivate a kingdom life that, when the "big show" happened, we would act differently -- for we would BE different.
The hope of the world, I'm utterly convinced, lies in this. The mindless robotic animal instinct self-defense of fallen humans has given us millenia of horrors. Will there be a tribe who will follow the example fo Jesus and try something different? Something totally crazy? Something utterly impractical by the world's standards?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/21/2004 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Can we say "Amish". 
Joking aside, have they not historical laid down the sword? | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 9/21/2004 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Leviathanquote:
Isn't best that our nation be a nation with Christians in it...?
And this would apply for all the other nations too.
Archibaldoquote:
He argues that Jesus was giving examples of non-violent RESISTANCE. Not a way to be nice, or to be humble, or even to "show love" but to resist in a way where violence was not the answer.
Interesting! Thank you for sharing that with us. I had never heard it explained in that way.
Greg Boydquote:
If Muslims attached us, as some are, would we simply do what normal Americans would do and pick up a sword and cut off their heads before they cut off ours? ... If this would be our response, in what sense do we "follow" Jesus' teaching? And if this would be our response, how is Chirstian "love" distinct from the world?
On the other hand, if someone came up to us and was in the process of killing an innocent child right in front of us would we just passively sit back and do nothing to intervene? Would Jesus? I don't know -- I'm just thinking out loud. I know that we are called to pick up our SWORD in the spiritual battle when the demonic is trying to steal and destroy so why would we not be called at times to pick up the sword during physical battles where someone is trying to steal or destroy?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/21/2004 11:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
The other week in a sermon I raised the question of what it means for us to "love our enemies, bless those who persecute you, pray for those who abuse you." If Muslims attached us, as some are, would we simply do what normal Americans would do and pick up a sword and cut off their heads before they cut off ours? If so, how have we progressed at all from the Christianity of the crusade? There too Christians killed Muslims in the name of God and country. If this would be our response, in what sense do we "follow" Jesus' teaching? And if this would be our response, how is Chirstian "love" distinct from the world?
As I read Scripture, nothing but nothing BUT NOTHING is so important as kingdom people cultivating a distinctly, outrageous, form of love that doesn't make any sense to the world -- as crazy as omnipotent God being crucified on the tree. And this crazy insane love is what is to win the world.
Of course, if we're honest with ourselves, we can't do it. If Muslims attached, we at the very least would WANT to cut off their heads before they cut off ours. Because, if we are honest, we don't love our enemies. Hence, obeying these teachings seems burdensome rather than freeing.
BUT, if we cultivated in little ways on a moment by moment basis a mindset and lifestyle of love -- if we "imitated God" and "lived in love as Christ loved us and gave his life for us" (Eph 5:1-2) -- I bet we'd cultivate a kingdom life that, when the "big show" happened, we would act differently -- for we would BE different.
The hope of the world, I'm utterly convinced, lies in this. The mindless robotic animal instinct self-defense of fallen humans has given us millenia of horrors. Will there be a tribe who will follow the example fo Jesus and try something different? Something totally crazy? Something utterly impractical by the world's standards?
Greg
The issue on this matter is one of jurisdiction and one's views on the kingdom of God. It is only in this context that I find it comprehensible. When the children of Israel went into Canaan, they had God Himself as their king. Their civil government, in a real and tangible way, was THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD in this world. Through them God exercised his judgment upon the sinners of the world. They were the manifest kingdom of God with God as their king as a theocracy. "The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them." This theocracy evolved into a kingdom in which the civil government could only be legitimately ruled by a genetic descendent of David. Even while corrupted and polluted, the civil government of Judah (Israel) was God's manifest civil government in the earth.
There was a break of this at the captivity. The authority of God's civil government was taken when Israel went into Babylon and it was never returned. The Maccabees attempted to restore something but they didn't follow the law and were themselves "lawless" although they had zeal. They set up a Levite instead of a genetic son of Aaron/Zadok as High Priest and had Levite as king instead of a genetic descendent of David. Both of these were anathema. They also joined the office of Levitical High Priest/King which was impossible under the Law. Jesus embraced the High Priesthood not through Levi but through Melchizedek and as such He can join the offices of priest/king.
When Jesus came the first time, He only took the authority in the spiritual jurisdiction. He did not come to take up the civil mantle at all. Thus, He is not and His followers have no place to exercise or attempt to exercise civil jurisdiction "on the basis of being Christians." As citizens of a civil state we exercise responsibilities and actions that we can and do give to Caesar. As Christians, however, civil authority and jurisdiction are foreign to us and will not be manifest until the return of the legitimate King of God's civil government upon this world, a genetic descendent of David, Jesus Christ.
As an aside, the whole story of John 8 with the woman caught in adultery is often misunderstood. The Pharisees brought the woman caught in sin. The Law demanded that she be killed. Had this been in the time of God's civil government on the earth, this would have surely happened. It is clear that the Pharisees had no civil authority under the Romans to execute people. Later in the same gospel we read this fact, "So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death." That they did kill people (like Stephen) was one more example of their lawlessness. They didn't have the jurisdiction or the authority to do this. Had Jesus called for the woman to be killed, He would have been taking up the civil mantle of King, which is what we are still waiting for.
He will come again as King and execute judgment upon the nations and all the immoral will die. Those of Islam who reject Him will be punished with the sword. The righteous blood will be avenged and those found guilty will be damned forever. It is this judgment that we are fleeing as we believe in Jesus' work in His first coming. We are looking with hope to flee from and escape the wrath of a coming righteous King who will judge all unrighteousness (including ours). Who will stand before this civil government? All the enemies of God will be judged. In Christ, God has extended mercy to all, the adulteress included. If we refuse this gift and don't repent as Jesus commanded the adulteress, we face a civil government and King that will condemn us.
For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/22/2004 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
I was at your services...good stuff, sure makes you think.
Greg-quote:
." If Muslims attached us, as some are, would we simply do what normal Americans would do and pick up a sword and cut off their heads before they cut off ours?
Few thoughts, let me justify my lack of strength and desire to "love our enemies, bless those who persecute you, pray for those who abuse you." 
1st- We are also called to summit to our government, and OUR government says it's 'by the people and for the people', and we are defend that when called. So aren't we called to fight for our way of life, not necessarily for Christianity?
2nd- Are we called to show this "outrageous, form of love" to the world? Or to our brothers and sisters in Christ? John 13:35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
3rd- This Act of 'loving our enemies' in my view is a act of power and strength and that given by God (like healings and raising people from the dead) things we saw in the early church, but not as much now. Because we are a church with little strength! Revelation 3:7,8 "...church in Philadelphia write...for thou hast a little strength..."
4th-Maybe the fight with fundamental Islam as nothing to do with 'loving our enemies' because it is an idea, and group effort. And how can we as individuals personally make a difference?
Maybe God just doesn't give us the power and strength to 'Love our enemies' on a global level. You see it in personal battles... the families that forgives the drunk driver that kills their teenage kid.
Now if a fundamental Muslim lived next to me and I was able to (with help of God) pray for them and show 'outrageous love' and kindness that would be one thing but how do you show love to a group of people who sets car bombs and flies planes into buildings?
If one of the guy captured in Iraq prayed for his enemies and showed love...MAYBE God with work on the heart of one of the terrorist. And that terrorist will wake up one day and say 'remember the nice Christian guy, he had a peace about him, and he even prayed for us right before we cut his head off!!!! Maybe God would give me the strength to do such a thing...but that would be all GOD. I'm not saying it can't happen or I wouldn't do it...I would have to have Gods help...after all He is the God that parted the Red Sea, He can change my heart.
-Levi-
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/22/2004 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh ya, one more thing,
The bible says, Love your enemy... but also says an eye for an eye. And Jesus said he did not come to change the law but to fullfil it. So both are true...somehow.
-Levi- | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/25/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Leviathan,
quote:
Oh ya, one more thing,
The bible says, Love your enemy... but also says an eye for an eye. And Jesus said he did not come to change the law but to fullfil it. So both are true...somehow.
The solution, I think, is arrived at by taking SpenLake's argument about jurisdiction and applying it to Genesis 8(?), where God commanded capital punishment against murderers. This is a command for the human race, not just Israel. This is what I think Paul is referring to in Romans 13.
Of course, that doesn't simplify things very much. For most, if not all, wars are unjust wars. Furthermore, there is so much corruption in government that you would be resisted fiercely if you tried to consistently do the right thing, therein. So, although I disagree with Doc's theory of the role/duty of government, I would agree that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have much practical influence for good on/in it.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/25/2004 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Spenlake,
quote:
It is clear that the Pharisees had no civil authority under the Romans to execute people. Later in the same gospel we read this fact, "So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death." That they did kill people (like Stephen) was one more example of their lawlessness.
Do we know historically that Pilate did not have authority to delegate to the Jews ANY power to execute? In other words, was Pilate going beyond his own jurisdiction in this offer?
I am only going by what the passage states and that it makes it clear that the Jewish leaders themselves acknowledged their own submission to the authority of Pilate regarding imposing death on those under Rome's jurisdiction.
I think that this passage in John is intended to expose the loyalties of the Jewish leaders who, by the requirements of Moses, were illegitimate themselves. They clearly proclaim their allegiance in John 19 to Pilate in front of their people, "So they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar." They served the Romans and Caesar as their king. They trusted in the power of Rome as we see earlier in John 11, "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."
If the true Messiah come to take the civil mantle that was rightly His and establish the civil kingdom of God in Israel, these men would have been killed as usurpers of the office of High Priest as clearly written in the Law and Prophets. They had real pragmatic reasons to oppose both the spiritual kingdom and the civil kingdom of God in Israel. Their only hope to maintain their authority and "place" as leaders rested in submission to Rome, not in believing in God and His Messiah.
They knew the Law but they built an entire system and hierarchy upon men whom were illegitimate and illegal according to this Law. Thus, when Jesus calls them hypocrites, the application extends to their entire system and source of power. They claimed to speak for God, but exposed themselves before the people when they acknowleded no allegiance to any king but Caesar.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/25/2004 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the Pharisees had no civil authority under the Romans to execute people. Later in the same gospel we read this fact, "So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death." That they did kill people (like Stephen) was one more example of their lawlessness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we know historically that Pilate did not have authority to delegate to the Jews ANY power to execute? In other words, was Pilate going beyond his own jurisdiction in this offer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am only going by what the passage states and that it makes it clear that the Jewish leaders themselves acknowledged their own submission to the authority of Pilate regarding imposing death on those under Rome's jurisdiction.
But the verse you quote explicitly shows Pilate offering/delegating? the power to kill Christ to the Pharisees. So how would the Pharisees have been unsubmissive to Rome unless Pilate, himself, was acting in usurpation in this offer/delegation? In other words, how do you know Pilate didn't have legitimate authority to delegate this power at his own discretion? For if he did, for all we know, the Pharisees had legal permission to kill the adulterous woman and Stephen. In which case, their real hypocrisy would have been their refusal to take Christ and hang him because of their cowardly fear of the people. I.e., they would be hypocritical in either case, but for different reasons, depending on whether Pilate had such discretionary power.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/25/2004 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Spen,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the Pharisees had no civil authority under the Romans to execute people. Later in the same gospel we read this fact, "So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death." That they did kill people (like Stephen) was one more example of their lawlessness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we know historically that Pilate did not have authority to delegate to the Jews ANY power to execute? In other words, was Pilate going beyond his own jurisdiction in this offer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am only going by what the passage states and that it makes it clear that the Jewish leaders themselves acknowledged their own submission to the authority of Pilate regarding imposing death on those under Rome's jurisdiction.
But the verse you quote explicitly shows Pilate offering/delegating? the power to kill Christ to the Pharisees. So how would the Pharisees have been unsubmissive to Rome unless Pilate, himself, was acting in usurpation in this offer/delegation? In other words, how do you know Pilate didn't have legitimate authority to delegate this power at his own discretion? For if he did, for all we know, the Pharisees had legal permission to kill the adulterous woman and Stephen. In which case, their real hypocrisy would have been their refusal to take Christ and hang him because of their cowardly fear of the people. I.e., they would be hypocritical in either case, but for different reasons, depending on whether Pilate had such discretionary power.
I finally get your point. The way I understand the text, "So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” is that Pilate wished them to use their own laws to deal with the problem. The Pharisees would have loved to have done so but lacked the authority to carry out capital punishment, therefore the authority that they desired went beyond what Pilate offered. You are saying that you understood the passage to be a legitimate offer delegating authority to them for capital punishment but their refusing to accept it.
The story of Paul in Acts 22/23 seems to indicate that the Romans intervened when possible to prevent the Jews from killing each other, even regarding temple matters. While in the communication given to the governor the centurion says the reason was that Paul was a Roman, he only learned this later. He says that he intervened to prevent him from being slain. "When this man was arrested by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, I came up to them with the troops and rescued him" In the first narrative we see, "While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the £commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. At once he took along some soldiers and centurions and ran down to them; and when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; and he began asking who he was and what he had done."
In any case, getting back to Pilate, the charges that the Jews brought against Jesus to Pilate were not the spiritual charges of "blasphemy" and claiming to be God. They brought civil charges against him of claiming to be King of the Jews. This is what Pilate questioned Him about. "Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”" If the Jews would have held a trial and judged Jesus on this charge they would have lost. Jesus was a legitimate heir to the throne of David and rightful civil ruler. He was also born in Bethlehem as per the prophecies. Even here, according to the charge they brought to Pilate, they were rejecting God's and the Law's legitimate king supported by the geneology in favor of the king of Rome. While the observations regarding Paul's arrest may be inconclusive, I think that this perspective on the charges the leaders brought before Pilate strengthens, rather than weakens the overall premise. They even tried to claim greater friendship with Caesar than Pilate when they shouted in John 19, " the Jews cried out saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/2/2004 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | |
1st- We are also called to summit to our government, and OUR government says it's 'by the people and for the people', and we are defend that when called. So aren't we called to fight for our way of life, not necessarily for Christianity?
Doc: Well, this logic would apply if you lived in IRAQ OR America or anywhere. So, do you think God intends Christians to be killing Chrisitans in defense of their "way of life"? An alternative is to conclude that Jesus' command trumps all other duties when a conflict arises.
2nd- Are we called to show this "outrageous, form of love" to the world? Or to our brothers and sisters in Christ? John 13:35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
Doc: Love YOUR ENEMIES, bless those WHO PERSECUTE you.. if you love only those who love you, what credit to you is that? (Lk 6:30 something to 37 or so... I'm going from memory here).
3rd- This Act of 'loving our enemies' in my view is a act of power and strength and that given by God (like healings and raising people from the dead) things we saw in the early church, but not as much now. Because we are a church with little strength! Revelation 3:7,8 "...church in Philadelphia write...for thou hast a little strength..."
Doc: Not following you here. I don't think you're going dispensational on love... are you? Or are you saying that if we were stronger we would love more. To THAT I say AMEN.
4th-Maybe the fight with fundamental Islam as nothing to do with 'loving our enemies' because it is an idea, and group effort. And how can we as individuals personally make a difference?
Doc: You clearly cannot love Islamic terrorISM... but we are called to loved the Islamic terrorIST.
Maybe God just doesn't give us the power and strength to 'Love our enemies' on a global level. You see it in personal battles... the families that forgives the drunk driver that kills their teenage kid.
Doc: The early church loved the people who burned them alive, impaled them on stakes and fed them to lions. We HAVE the strength. It just requires dying to self to use it.
Now if a fundamental Muslim lived next to me and I was able to (with help of God) pray for them and show 'outrageous love' and kindness that would be one thing but how do you show love to a group of people who sets car bombs and flies planes into buildings?
Doc: You start by loving them IN FACT... in your heart. Ascribe worth to them, each of them, because Jesus died for them reflecting that they have unsurpassable worth (he paid an unsurpassable price). You're just agreeing with God.
If one of the guy captured in Iraq prayed for his enemies and showed love...MAYBE God with work on the heart of one of the terrorist. And that terrorist will wake up one day and say 'remember the nice Christian guy, he had a peace about him, and he even prayed for us right before we cut his head off!!!! Maybe God would give me the strength to do such a thing...but that would be all GOD. I'm not saying it can't happen or I wouldn't do it...I would have to have Gods help...after all He is the God that parted the Red Sea, He can change my heart.
Doc: Of course we need God's help in this. But HASN'T HE ALREADY GIVEN IT? Don't all who submit to Christ have the Holy Spirit? Is he not ALREADY working in us to will and to do his good pleasure? (Phil 2:13). The remaining variable, I submit, is OUR will.
Good questions,
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/3/2004 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Leviathan
Oh ya, one more thing,
The bible says, Love your enemy... but also says an eye for an eye. And Jesus said he did not come to change the law but to fullfil it. So both are true...somehow.
-Levi-
Jesus directly refutes the "eye for an eye" principle in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matt. 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; NRSV
That said, I think this refers to personal retribution/revenge, not necessarily defense of the defenseless, which would arguably be justified, and indeed OBLIGATORY, for anyone who was truly committed to benevolence (the highest good of all). If this is not true, how can a police officer be a truly obedient-to-God Christian? Further, Paul's argument in Romans 13, that the secular ruler is "a minister of God to execute wrath upon the evildoers" is directly contradicted if we take the absolute pacifist point of view as the standard of Christian moral obligation to society.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/3/2004 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Jefscottquote:
the view you're advocating seems to imply (at least in some conceivable cases) that we should allow Christians (of the invading army) to kill our own families - since we would not, by your view, even have the right to defend ourselves. Am I misunderstanding you?
I want to share what God revealed to me in prayer concerning the above comment:
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
"To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to KILL and a time to HEAL ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to LOVE and a time to HATE;
a time for WAR and a time for PEACE."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/5/2004 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | [I don't think Doc thinks Christians are to ever fight in a war - even in a just war. That's why I'm asking the question.
Doc: Its a good question. Lets think this through a bit.
* Is there any suggestion Jesus meant to say "love your enemies and do good to those who mistreat you" UNLESS the cause is just? (remember, he was talking to people who before long would be fed to lions and burned alive... unjustly)?
* how do you decide what a "just" war is? Can you be certian your criteria of "justice" is God's criteria (e.g. Does HE think political freedom is worth killing for?). Do you know all the REAL motives why your commander in chief tells you to kill someone, or do you just trust their word? Do you know all the historical, personal, sociological, political variables that affect whether a war is or is not "just"?
* Even if you are sure (and you better be, since your wagering other peoples lives on what looks like a direct violation of Jesus' command), is this grounds for killing? Has God given you a definitive command to kill another?
*If someone answers "yes" to all these questions, I cannot judge them. They have to answer to their own Lord, as I do mine (Rom. 14). But I suspect that, if these questions were asked seriously, very very few kingdom disciples would ever take up arms. 99.99% of the young people who kill and are killed in wars do so because someone they were culturally conditioned to trust told them to. Kingdom people need to operate differently.
Hope this helps,
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| 42 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|